Talk:Criminal law in the Marshall Court

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Criminal law in the Marshall Court/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk · contribs) 23:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll work on a preliminary read-through later this week. Here's the one I told you about. Best and safe travels, Lord Roem (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Read-through comments

Background

• Maybe need a transition sentence from the Federalist papers Hamilton quote to the Constitutional Convention line. Obviously one leads to the other, but transitioning it more directly would improve the paragraph's clarity.
  • ive tinkered. I suppose the proper chronological treatment would be convention then federalist papers. Savidan 17:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "and exclusive jurisdiction over all other federal crimes" - are these the ones you mentioned earlier, or not?
  • I'm not sure I see the source of the misunderstanding. The exclusive jurisdiction was only over crimes that the district courts couldn't try (thus: "exclusive"). So, not. Savidan 14:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Any interesting/noteworthy examples of "single-subject criminal statutes"?
  • every statute cited in this article other than the 1790 and 1825 Crimes Acts. Savidan 14:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources of jurisdiction

• Before going into examples of the use of the 'writ of error', could you write a brief description (either here or in the lead) of what it is? I have a rough idea of it... but something more substantive would be helpful.
  • i added something. Savidan 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• You include a pretty massive chunk of the dissent in Bollman. Entirely necessary?
  • I didnt include any of the dissents argument in the merits, really. Only the fact of the dissent, the identity of the dissenters, amd the explanation of the retroactive dissent in Burford. Due to the rarity of pulished dissents during this period, I consider any dissent notable. As for the blockquote, I suppose it could be replaced, but I like the way he worded it and think it tells much about the deliberative process of the court during this period. Savidan 14:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Just curious why you have Prof. Freedman's opinion here on the issue of section 14. Any other scholarly opinions on this question?
  • there probably are others that i would include in the Bollman article. Since Friedman is the only one who devotes this much coverage to the issue, afaiaw, I think it is fair to summarize his views only. Savidan 14:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• In the subsection on Ex parte Watkins, you explain what "capias ad satisfaciendum" was, but not "capias pro fine". Those aren't well-known writs, so a short description would help the context of this section.
  • added. Savidan 14:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Defining federal crimes

• I think it would be preferable to explain in clear terms what an "assimilative crime" is, rather than post the whole paragraph trying to define it. Essentially, I feel a shorter description is sufficient.
  • ive added a short description but i think the specific text is important. For example it shows the specific places where it applied. Savidan 16:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm. Including a whole paragraph on the 1948 amendment on this subject seems to fall outside the scope of the article. Additionally, the quote from Sharpnack is difficult to understand; it has a ton of big vocabulary in it. The average reader may not know what's going on there.
  • i view it as within the scope bc the amendment finally undid the effect of the marshall court decision. As for the quote, i didnt have much else to choose from. That is the sentence where sharpnack discusses the effect of marshall's decision. Savidan 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ive also added a wikilink. Savidan 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Does any professor argue or does any other law review article discuss, the issue about federal common law crimes?
  • of course yes. Ive chosen this article because of the depth of treatment and because it contextualizes the topic to the marshall court era. The intent was not to take on the whole topic of common law crime, only to explain the minimum context of the marshall court's specific contribution. Savidan 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• In the 'False statements' section, if you're going to include that "Justice McLean dissented", I want to know what was interesting or noteworthy about his dissent.
  • just the fact that he would dare commit a disset to writing. Dissents then were much rarer than today. Savidan 16:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Criminal procedure

• Just one quibble here: what is a 'nolle prosequi'?
  • its linked and i added a parenthetical. Savidan 16:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• I think the research in this article is incredible, and it is extraordinarily comprehensive. After addressing the few points I brought up, I'd be glad to promote this to GA.

-- Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Still decompressing from the bar. I'll get to these soon. Savidan 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• getting started from my iphone. May only be able to do minor things. Savidan 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding to my comments. I think you've addressed my small concerns; I'm moving to promote this to GA status. Good job with this article. Hoping the best with your bar results, Lord Roem (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)